The whole thing is highly complicated, and requires some backstory to fully grasp. I’ve tried to piece together as much of this story as possible into a cohesive narrative that shines some light on the situation.

Before reading further, though, it’s important to note that much of this information is derived from leaks to the press, statements made by people who are only tangentially related to the events, and even some outright speculation. Trying to navigate through the miasma of confusion surrounding the subject is rather difficult, and if any new information comes to light, the statements made in this article may need to be updated.

Federal Email Regulations

With that said, we’ll start with some important background information on government email regulations. According to a March 2015 article by Politifact’s Lauren Carroll, during Clinton’s term as Secretary of State between 2009 and 2013, “there was not an explicit, categorical prohibition against federal employees using personal emails.” In plainer language, regulations allowed — at least by implication — federal employees, including cabinet members, to use personal email addresses to conduct official business.

In fact, Carroll also states, “some former secretaries of state occasionally used personal emails for official business.” Just how “occasionally” they were used is difficult to know, but other sources say that Secretaries since Madeleine Albright have used personal email addresses in official capacities.

Colin Powell is said to have primarily used a personal account (the server, however, was a commercial one, which is an important difference from Clinton’s privately maintained, home-based server). Clinton, according to most sources, was the first Secretary of State to rely exclusively on personal email during her term.

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), which oversees recordkeeping for the federal government, requires the storage of records on governmental activities so that they can be referred to in the future, such as when a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request is made or a Congressional panel decides that it needs to see them.

What’s included in the NARA’s definition of “records”? Here’s what their website says a federal record is:

Records include all books, papers, maps, photographs, machine-readable materials, or other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by an agency of the United States Government under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business . . . as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the Government or because of the informational value of the data in them.

State-provided email addresses automatically archive their emailsHow To Use Your Downloaded Gmail DataHow To Use Your Downloaded Gmail DataYou can finally download a copy of your Gmail data! The MBOX file Gmail gives you is ideal for keeping an offline backup or moving all your emails to a new service or Gmail account.Read More in a manner that’s approved by the NARA, ensuring that the owners of those accounts are complying with the regulations. These communications, as well as other records that are kept under NARA regulations, ensure that federal employees’ and departments’ actions are properly documented and available for review.

Interestingly, there’s disagreement over just how clear these regulations are. Clinton’s campaign and aides have at times maintained that the rules are unclear and that they were following the regulations as they (and Secretary Clinton) understood them. Other sources, including the State Department’s Inspector General, say that the Department’s email regulations were clearly defined and that Clinton’s camp had an unambiguous responsibility to discuss her private server with the Department, at least for security purposes.

Mrs. Clinton has also stated that because she regularly emailed with other members of the State Department, many of her emails went into the government system anyway, though few people seem convinced that this was (or should be) a viable justification. Collecting emails from accounts all around the State Department in an effort to establish a record of her conversations, after all, would be rather difficult.

The Problem with a Personal Email Server

Now that you have a good idea of why regulations require that records be kept, and understand that a @state.gov email address would have automatically backed up and stored all email, you can probably already start to see why Clinton’s personal email server (which used the @clintonemail.com domain) is a matter of contention.

The history of Clinton’s email server and its revelation are rather complicated, but I’ll do my best to lay them out here in a coherent manner. The first information security issues came to light as Clinton began her tenure as Secretary of State in 2009, when she insisted on using her personal BlackBerry to keep up with emails. This didn’t sit well with the State Department, which didn’t allow her to take the device into her secured office suites, as it wasn’t deemed sufficiently secure.

While Clinton’s team maintain that there were no successful attacks on the server, security professionals interviewed by the Post have stated that a system with the protections placed on the Clinton server “could be made reasonably secure but that it would need constant monitoring by people trained to look for irregularities in the server’s logs.”

In addition to security concerns, the use of a personal email server may also run afoul of the NARA recordkeeping mandate, as the emails stored there were not automatically archived, and the integrity of any email record turned over to the NARA, Congress, or other authorities would be suspect.

Federal Investigations

Congressional hearings on the 2012 Benghazi attacks led the State Department to request in late 2014 that Clinton turn over all of her emails from the time in which she served as Secretary of State; she complied, turning over 55,000 printed pages of over 30,000 emails (the choice to hand over printed copies aroused some suspicion among commentators, especially when a USB drive with those emails on it was transferred later). She also stated that she had deleted over 32,000 emails that were personal in nature, which is allowed by federal law.

Later in 2015, Clinton’s IT contractor, Platte River Systems, turned over the server to the FBI — but it was empty. All of the emails had been deleted. At least some of those deleted emails have been recovered, and rumors indicate that some of them did, in fact, contain work-related information (which would be a rather damning discovery), but little is known at this point, as this part of the investigation is still ongoing.

Currently, the FBI is leading an investigation to determine if classified information was mishandled, to what extent, and who is culpable. Over 2,000 emails recovered contain information that has been retroactively classified as “confidential” or higher, with 22 containing “top secret” information, some of which contained information from “special access programs,” which requires a security clearance even higher than top secret.

None of this information was marked as classified when it was sent, and it’s unclear whether Secretary Clinton would have known that it would be classified. However, government regulations do stipulate that sensitive information should be treated as classified regardless of how it’s labeled. The FBI clearly has a tough case on its hands.

Another ongoing case is being spearheaded by Judicial Watch, a conservative political organization, in a suit against the State Department under the the Freedom of Information Act.

Multiple FOIA requests for information on Clinton’s emails have been returned with no results; because the Secretary’s emails were stored on a private server in her home, they were not subject to FOIA, arousing some suspicion that the use of this server was intended to evade public scrutiny of the email record.

Finally, the Benghazi panel is still continuing its investigation into the events that transpired in 2012, which is an entirely separate issue, though the findings of either investigation may have a bearing on the other.

Other Players

While Secretary Clinton has been the primary focus of the criticism surrounding this issue, there are a number of others who have played a role in the events and found themselves the targets of inquiry or made statements that paint the entire situation in a rather negative light.

For example, Bryan Pagliano, the IT staffer who maintained Clinton’s email server, is a notable figure in that the State Department, as of May 2016, has found none of his texts or emails from Clinton’s years of service. Some emails from him have been found in others’ accounts, but digital communications from the four years that he served as the Clintons’ IT specialist seem to have disappeared down a black hole.

Further controversy and confusion surround Pagliano and his hiring, as well. He was brought on as a political appointee, which is highly irregular for an IT staffer. Officials at the State Department’s Bureau of Information Resource Management were surprised by this hiring, as political appointees are generally brought on to work in Presidentially appointed officials’ offices.

Because there was no suitable Presidential appointee in the IT department, Pagliano reported to Patrick Kennedy, the State Department’s Undersecretary for Management. Kennedy, however, had little regular contact with Pagliano, and was never told about his role as the Clintons’ email server manager, for which he was paid separately by the Clintons.

Pagliano also used his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in late 2015, prompting the Justice Department to give him immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony in the investigation. All of these facts have brought Pagliano and his role in the Clinton camp under suspicion.

Changing Stories

As if the story isn’t complicated enough already, some statements made by the Clinton team have seemed to contradict — at least indirectly — previous statements made during the investigation. A New York Times article from October 2015 lists a number of contradictions in subsequent statements.

For example, Secretary Clinton stated that using a personal email account was a matter of convenience, and that she should have set up a second account and carried a second device to separate her personal and work emails. It was later revealed that she already was carrying two devices, contradicting the implication of her first statement.

Early in the investigation, Clinton categorically stated that there was no classified information on her server. She then changed her statement to acknowledge the fact that some information was retroactively classified. It was later discovered that some of the information was indeed classified at the time she received it.

One of Clinton’s public statements from early 2015 said that her team “went through a thorough process to identify all of my work-related emails and delivered them to the State Department. I have absolute confidence that everything that could be in any way connected to work is now in the possession of the State Department.” It was later revealed that some emails between Clinton and her confidant Sidney Blumenthal regarding controversial actions in Libya had not been turned over during the investigation. She later said that she had turned over all emails that “potentially were federal records.”

There are other contradictions as well, though the degree to which any of them — the above included — imply any wrongdoing or malicious intent is highly debatable.

Serious Accusations

With all of the various plot lines running throughout this narrative, it can be easy to lose the thread of what Clinton and her team are actually accused of doing. The accusations range from the believably unfortunate — accidental mishandling of (at the time) unclassified information — to the outlandish: RedState, an outspoken conservative political blog, has accused Clinton of selling state secrets.

Of course, the range of accusations continues through the middle as well: willfully flouting regulations and — in some cases — federal laws in order to protect emails from Freedom of Information Act requests is, at best, unethical and suspicious, and at worst, highly illegal. Federal charges related to handling of classified information have been discussed, and there have also been unsubstantiated (and highly doubtful) rumors of racketeering charges as well.

Her family history of controversy isn’t helping Mrs. Clinton’s public image in relation to these charges, either. A number of commentators have likened her pattern of responses to the controversial Whitewater scandal, for which the Clintons were investigated in the 1990s. Clinton has also been accused of wrongdoing in multiple other investigations, including one in which a large number of emails were reportedly lost due a computer glitch.

An As-Yet-Untangled Web

The sheer number of twists and turns in this convoluted fiasco is fit for a Chuck Palanhiuk novel collection. Deleted servers, Fifth Amendment invocations, contradictory statements, retroactive classifications, entire people missing from the email record, questionable political appointments… the list goes on.

And as this saga continues to unfold, there are sure to be more aberrations. Federal investigations continue, FBI questioning is likely to follow, an indictment could be forthcoming, the State Department will almost certainly continue its own investigations, and FOIA suits will likely go on for years; it looks like we won’t see the end of this discussion for a very long time.

Of course, one of the issues on everybody’s mind is how these questions might affect the 2016 presidential election. Some Republicans are trying to capitalize on questions of legality, ethics, and intentions, while many Democrats contend that the questions are irrelevant and have been politicized to an undue degree.

At the time of this writing, the effects of these investigations on Clinton’s campaign and reputation are far from clear. Suspicion has obviously been cast over her and her staff, but what effect that will have in the long term won’t be known for months, if not years. As of now, the implications of this entire debacle are anyone’s guess. What is certain, however, is that we are far from the end of this story, and that it’s only likely to get more convoluted from here.

What do you think about Hillary Clinton’s email scandal? Does it worry you? Has it changed your feelings on her suitability for office? Or do you think that the entire thing is overblown? We want to hear your thoughts, so leave them in the comments below and we’ll talk about it.

If the server security was so important why was Clinton allowed to set up her own? Why was she allowed to maintain said server and email domain for FOUR years and no one said boo about it at the time? My father had more security set up around his server as a civil servant as a GS9. He wasn't allowed to use any other server for work purposes from day 1? Sounds like CYA to me.

No, I was trying to say that the State Dept IT dept dropped the ball. Having a secure server should have been one of the rules for allowing Clinton to have one in her home. Whoever provided her with the hardware should have done a better job.

Many people feel that way. No matter how you feel about the issue, though, I thought it was important to understand the facts that had been—at the point of the article's release—verified. You're entitled to take whatever you want from those pieces of information, but isn't it better for people to have the facts and be able to draw their own conclusions?

Why is everybody surprised about Hillary Clinton's stubborn behavior? What you expect else from a 68 year old grandma? A grandma which use every day 5 kg make up and 5 hours in front of the mirror to fool all you Americans that she is dynamic and full of power. This a women which take at night when she goes to sleep her dentures out!

We are talking about a 68 year old grandma who belongs with her mental state in a home for retirement and not in the white house.

It is normal that people who are so stone old have strange behaviors which are difficult to change. She is in a age in which the brain does not work flexible anymore.

But the other option is even worse. A 70 year old insane grandpa who lies when he open the mouth and dont understand the world from today. A man who should be forced admitted into a closed mental hospital try to escape this fate. He does this with trying to become president of the USA.

Two people who would never get any job anymore on the free market .... and one of them will be the master of thousands of atomic bombs soon.

The rest of the world fear already this 70 year old senile people who try to be the leaders for the young dynamic Americans. People who are so stone old that they do not have to lose anything anymore. They will face no consequences of their actions whatsoever.

You can vote between two wheelchair candidates. Trump show already first signs of dementia. This two candidates need to have home care for suffering from Alzheimer's or other forms of senile dementia which is common in this age. They do not belong to the White House.

Because they are dead when their politics show the first effects. They can not hold responsible for all their actions. That is a green card for creating chaos. Whatever they decide, they do not need to care. They are not the victims of their own decisions.

Does she need to murder somone on live TV? What does this EVIL woman need to do in order for people to see her for what she really is? American prisons are filled with people who have done far less and convicted with far less evidence. Do you really want someone with such low morals and such greed to be your President? Do you women out there want American womanhood to be represented around the world by this kind if person. Defends her sex addict sociopath husband on national TV.
Sold untold numbers of secrets and technology to China by way of campaign contributions solely for monetary gain. Murdered dozens of other people to keep them quiet about his drug and sexcapades. Then created the Clinton Foundation to legally accept money from foreigners and US Corporations. Hillary Clinton represents EVERYTHING that is immoral and wrong about American politics. Not that the Ego Maniac Trump is much better. Putin has and will outmaneuver her in every aspect if she becomes President. She is not fit in any way based on attitude, morals, values, integrity, honesty, or decency to represent this country.
She views people as expendable and useless resources. She allowed a US Ambassador to be murdered in order to hide the shipment of weapons from Libya through Turkey to Syria.
What do you think the CIA compound was there? Wake up people the worse is yet to come!
DO YOU REALLY THINK SHE CARES ABOUT YOU OR THIS COUNTRY?
Educate your self. The Clintons have and always will do what enriches the Clintons. Look to see who "contributes" to the Clinton Foundation. THEY WILL BE THE ONES GOVERNING THIS COUNTRY IF HILLARY BECOMES PRESIDENT...

It seems highly overblown for some political ends . There's nothing so damning about the said emails otherwise it would have already been used against the US by all kinds of bad guys like terrorists , communists saboteurs etc . The secretary was not an evil criminal trying to sell her country away with evil intentions , but probably just not tech savvy enough to understand the whole impact of techno , as many people were'nt .Even today most people are just getting to understand technology well enough to even decipher this kind of argument and many politicians at the time were caught in similar situations. They should just train their staff on security issues in technology and move on .

I think what irks a lot of people is that a lot of staff WERE trained. It just doesn't seem like they did their jobs very well. Quite a few people knew about the potential security problems this situation caused, but nobody stepped up to do much about it. That's what it looks like, anyway.

This is an issue of trust, or in Mrs. Clinton's part, distrust. Her intent is obvious, she wanted to pick and choose what we the public would ever see concerning her communiques while she was Secretary of State. That intent alone proves her arrogance; her belief that she is royalty to be served, not a public servant. Unfortunately, far too many voters turn a blind eye to her misdeeds because she is among the class of politicians who have secured power by promising increasing volumes of free stuff while setting us on a collision course with national bankruptcy. By the time that happens, she and her kind will be out of office or in the grave; but who will clean up the mess? I would love to hear Trump say, "Americans living in poverty do not really want a hand out. They want an opportunity to work and earn a good living." Liberals convince people they are victims of corporate greed, and that argument sells because it is true. Most Corporate officials need to do a better job of sharing the reward of success with employees. Wouldn't it be refreshing to hear a Republican contestant say something like that?

Honestly, I work in the IT realm and here is my two cents:
Labeling or not labeling material does NOT determine its classification; labeling is required by IA and the BBP to ensure that information is being handled properly.
What determines a classification level is the "content" of the document being sent or received.
The second issue is the regulations in play, there may have been no regulations stating a federal employee could not discuss official business via a personal email account. however, Discussing "Classified", "Secret" and/or "Top-Secret" material over an "Unclassified" line or via private media is illegal.
The last issue is more of a personal issue with what happened, ignorance of a law or policy does not equate innocence. Mrs. Clinton has currently tried to play off the issue as if it is a mute point and "not a big deal". However, national security should always be seen as a top priority especially for someone seeking to hold some of our countries top secrets in their hands.
So either Mrs. Clinton was incompetent or she knowingly broke the rules for convenience sake, or heck she even did it because she thought she wouldn't get caught. Either way, she was wrong in her actions and deserves whatever comes of her actions.
To say we should let the issue go is an extreme slap in the face to justice and the judicial system; which speculates, positions and status authorizes corruption.

I definitely understand what you're saying here; there are definitely some serious issues with the fact that her campaign is relying heavily on the "best of our knowledge" and "we didn't know" defenses. That's just not good enough. I agree that she should face the consequences for her actions, but with every day that goes by with the justice/state departments doing nothing, I get less hopeful.

You have a Quid without a Quo here, so it looks like a whole lot of noise about absolutely nothing -- save, perhaps, some sloppiness in choosing to skirt regulations on using a blackberry, personal email, and a personal server at that. Pay the fine and move on.

i once thought Ms Clinton was the best choice for President, but the last year and a half have exposed her shortcomings rather unforgivingly. This article is one of the more objective and rational pieces that I have read. Well done.

Thanks, Roy! I tried really hard to be as objective and rational as possible, and I'm glad that came across (at least to some people). I definitely understand your thoughts about Clinton's shortcomings . . . I don't think they'll keep her out of office, but hopefully they keep people on their toes and draw some watchful eyes to her activities there.

It's interesting that that hasn't come up in the news since then (at least not to my knowledge). My best guess was that it either didn't pan out the way the FBI thought it would, or the emails were useless. Which is certainly possible. I'll keep my eye out for any new developments on this front, but I feel like if anything important came of it, we'd probably know by now, if we're ever going to find out. Hm. Thanks for the link!

Regarding Clinton being pardoned by President Obama...I think you have to be proven guilty in a court of law first. That isn't going to happen any time soon. Watching this drama play out provokes a lot of anxiety for me. Her favorable numbers are low, people don't trust her, her unfavorable numbers are high. Yet, she's still touted as the Democratic candidate. What are they smoking or drinking in Washington?

Yeah, that's the case: you can't be pardoned if you haven't been found guilty of anything. That's another reason why I don't think there'll be any pardon, as that's not going to happen for a very long time, if at all. I totally agree with you; the Democratic party was pushing for her really aggressively the entire time, despite her abysmal trustworthiness ratings. I don't understand it.

"I don’t understand it."
The age 18-24 demographic is enamored with electing the first woman. She is the only woman Democrat with a recognizable name. Feinstein, Boxer, Warren don't even come close.
She's a Clinton.
She stepped aside for Obama, now it's her turn.
Support is the price of favors people owe her.
She has the "experience".
She has told the Democrat voters what they wanted to hear.

Oh, I understand why she's an appealing candidate, and most of those reasons figure really significantly in that. But I don't get why people aren't a little more upset about this. Though, on the other hand, my research of the topic showed that most publications weren't covering it very well, so that probably has a lot to do with it.

casey

June 15, 2016 at 7:33 pm

18-24 year olds are absolutely not enamored with the idea of a woman president. do you even have internet access? that entire demographic is owned by sanders.

fcd76218

June 15, 2016 at 10:02 pm

"do you even have internet access?"
No, I do not. Usually I just use smoke signals. :-)
However, I do have some capital letters I can loan you. :P

Ryan Dube

June 16, 2016 at 12:32 am

That's true - 18-24 yr old females support Sanders by a crazy wide margin. It's the older crowd that Clinton does better with -- the died in the wool Democrats.

watamess

June 13, 2016 at 8:05 am

I have a hard time understanding how her supporters aren't, at least, pausing to consider the possibility of her wrongdoing. How many "coincidences" will it take for people to realize they don't happen like that?

She's asked for her server, she delays for months to give it to them, when they finally receive it, its been wiped. She says it crashed.

She says she gave them all the emails she had, they find thousands more.

No emails seem to exist between her and their IT guy on her server and the backup he made has disappeared.

The list goes on. This woman has been in politics for 3 decades. She was conditioned by some of the most powerful people on the planet. Anyone with the authority to bring charges on her I don't believe would have the nerve. In her position as long as she's been, she must have dirt on many people, many others owing her favors.

She lied outright that her plane was under sniper fire and they had to run to cover with bullets whizzing by them. The only unusual thing she was greeted with was a little girl who recited a poem to her. That's a real big lie.

If an average person was asked to hand their server over to law enforcement, that person delayed it for months and upon delivery reported it was wiped because it crashed, what do you think would happen?

That's exactly how I feel—before I researched this article, I thought this whole thing was probably blown out of proportion, but after I spent hours compiling this information, I realized that there's just a huge number of suspicious things that happened. Way more than seem reasonable for a coincidence or ignorance. It's just all too strange. And you have a good point about what the consequences would be for an average person if they were asked for their server. It definitely wouldn't be good. Interesting that you think she has dirt on a lot of people—it makes sense, but the thought hadn't really occurred to me. I wonder if that's playing into this situation.

I believe she is the epitome of how politicians are portrayed in some movies. G.I. Jane comes to mind.

She was part of the effort to force the ambassador to Kenya, Scott Gration, to resign because " he set up private, unsanctioned e-mail service for official business". The big difference between his email and hers is that HE let them know. He never tried to hide it.

Yeah, that's a really interesting story. I've read about it a bit now, but I need to keep looking into it. I'm surprised more people aren't reporting on that—it seems like a really relevant piece of information! But so few people have talked about it that it didn't even come up in my research.

Steve

June 14, 2016 at 10:46 am

Ford pardoned Nixon, who had technically never been found guilty. That was quite the scandal as many wanted Nixon's head on a platter.

I didn't realize that Nixon had never actually been found guilty. That's really interesting. Quick excerpt from Wikipedia: "a 1915 U.S. Supreme Court decision which stated that a pardon indicated a presumption of guilt, and that acceptance of a pardon was tantamount to a confession of that guilt." Hm.

Dear Mr. Dann Albright:
It is seems quite obvious who you will vote for; Clinton.
You sir are a liar.
The issue has NEVER been "personal emails", as any semi-informed person knows—the issue is Sec. Clinton's "personal email" SERVER!

IT has NEVER been legal for ANYONE to remove/move classified government documents either from a secure storage facility or to an unsecured storage facility.

Yet, that is EXACTLY what Sec. Clinton did, by having her staff knowingly, and illegally, remove security markings from documents, and then emailing them to her "personal email" server.

Former General "David H. Petraeus", and former "Director of the Central Intelligence Agency" was indicted for violating federal law regarding the the proper handling and storage of classified documents. [quoted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus%5D

In both prior cases, the primary issue was the handling and storage of classified documents, which, under federal law, constitutes a serious offense.
No provision is made for intent of motivation; ANY so-called 'mishandling' of classified documents is a serious crime, which obviously Sec. Clinton is clearly guilty of by reason of ordering her staff forward copies of classified documents to her, after having removed the 'classified' marking. [Easily done using a computer and software.]

BTW, I am NOT a "Republican" or a "Democrat", nor do I waste my time "voting"—if 'voting' could make a 'difference', it would be outlawed by the corrupt lawless political class. IMO, only idiots, fools, and the seriously deranged bother to 'vote', since clearly 'elections' are totally fraudulent, as is the 'government' which is supposedly elects/supports.

The issue covers both personal email accounts and personal email servers, as using a personal commercial account would have also provided more accountability than a personal server. I think maybe you're misinterpreting what I (and others quoted in the article) mean by "personal emails"; it refers to personal email accounts, not just emails sent for a personal purpose.

I don't think you (and others) understand that 'personal email' is properly understood as any email/email system NOT part of the U.S. government system used by and for the government and it's employees. [Which provides/provided a means to properly 'record' a public record of activity of the government, and it's personnel.]
Consequently, the term 'personal email' is often misapplied, particularly by those attempting to obfuscate the issue.

While I commend the efforts of anyone who sincerely tries to clarify and inform the 'public' regarding issues raised in the dishonest and corrupt 'media', anyone who supports a corrupt politician, party, government, or system is equally corrupt. As most people are 'OK' w/ that, I personally am not, and in the interest of the 'general welfare', find anyone who is 'OK' with that to be an enemy of the 'common good'. Additionally, IMO, such people are 'the problem', by dint of the fact that they have actually decided for the opposite of what is the 'good', 'noble', or 'better' 'choice', available. In the event of there not being such a 'better' choice, any who participate have to choose between "the lesser of two evils", which is deliberately choosing 'evil'. This is simply not acceptable to a 'moral' person, or to any who strive to be such. It has been said that 'politics is the art of compromise', but compromising with 'evil' is the same as 'evil', morally—also not acceptable to anyone who tries to be a 'moral' person.

In my opinion, Makeusof.com is in the unenviable and awkward position of trying to justify a 'political' position; something which will certainly offend any number of readers.

Most likely, the 'better' choice is to avoid politics, in every way, form, or fashion.

I hope this elucidates my previous post, & helps you to understand 'why' I bothered to post at all. As most people seem to be 'OK' with the current situation, I choose not to be, and not to participate either. I look forward to the time when more people will choose to not be a part of such a corrupt, fraudulent system as we now experience.

Actually I thought Dann's coverage was decidedly non-political. It was a very scientifically minded analysis of the technical claims behind the whole thing -- while most other sites are too focused on the politics, Dann actually dug into the technology and the guidelines/rules behind what made the setup insecure or not, and what it means in terms of securing data. Ultimately, this is important information for anyone who handles governmental or otherwise sensitive information.

Kelsey Tidwell

June 14, 2016 at 4:54 pm

There are different classes of opinions, and different classes of asses.

I would imagine, as far as my idiotic, foolish, seriously deranged little brain can (since you know me you have a right to judge me that way), that you have no problem enjoying every benefit and freedom of living in the United States...which are provisioned by this government that you don't have the wherewithal to get up off your brains, wipe the ignorant textual diarrhea off of your fingers, and go try to make a difference in things.

You are no neighbor of mine, if you're even an American, and the 1/10th of 1/1000th of 1% of credibility you started out with has now been revoked.

As I've previously noted, being part of a corrupt system is something I will not do. And as you can't fault that logic, you then attack me PERSONALLY. So the evidence for my decision is clear in your corrupt, immoral, inhumane, and vulgar display.

Well, *if* you seriously believe that your 'vote' will make the difference, and that it will solve all our problems, then please, be my guest, and 'vote'—and when the same problems are all still here, and the only difference is that now you are part of the problem, instead of part of the solution, then maybe you also will reconsider your decision to be part of the problem.
[I voted for over twenty years, and the result was that things got worse, not better. So I choose to not be part of the problem. Clearly, I wasn't helping.]

As for me, I know that our problems are not all the result of our imperfection, and that a higher power exists, and that soon, all humanity will recognize that we are not able to even understand all the factors that negatively affect us. In that light, I choose to put my faith and confidence in something that is not corrupt, dishonest, unethical, immoral, or evil.

You are free to do as you please.

Even if that includes mistreating another human being, merely for having a different point of view.

Baaaaahahahahaha!!!! A personal attack? I'll let slide your bigoted remark of, "IMO, only idiots, fools, and the seriously deranged bother to ‘vote’", even though it classifies me as something I am not, just because I vote. I consider that a personal attack.

But there's no way you can sidestep and say that you didn't attack Dann with, "You sir are a liar." Dann probably wishes he weren't restrained somewhat by editorial guidelines in his responses.

I did NOT attack you because an "attack" is the FIRST step in sparring. You took that first step, and I responded. A response to an attack is a defense. Before you accuse me of mistreating a human being because they have a different point of view, see that you don't do the same first.

All voters (and editors) will be grateful.

Now, bad policies in this country don't get changed because more people with the right ideas DON'T vote. It's simple logic to understand that when more people in favor of position "A" vote, than those in favor of position "B", position "A" will win. It's not the fault of the voter. It's the fault of the non-voter. Your philosophy is that if you don't win, just quit. Nope.

People who don't vote are part of the problem, not voters, because even though action may not always get the desired results, inaction NEVER does.

But perhaps you refer to Romans 13:1. I believe in that truth also, but I also believe in performing our civic duty as spoken of in Matthew 22:21.

Dignity

June 17, 2016 at 2:01 am

Excellent and very eloquent response. Very dignified and to the point.

Frank J

June 12, 2016 at 5:38 pm

For those who think there is still a Bengazi issue, just search 'there is no Bengazi' and get returns from all sources including fox. Its been over since that clown in California mistakenly admitted on air it was propaganda, can't recall his name... Kevin? Ken?

Pretty good job for this direction you have gone... BTW There is NO Bengazi. And as far as having to vote in the end for the lesser of two evils, I believe makeuseof readers are way above the mean when it comes to intelligence.
And Bernie... You are a hero and live long, so the 99 may prosper.

The bigger story is her and Bill's use of CGI as a not-for-profit criminal enterprise to enrich the Clinton's at the expense of the United States. The FBI should wait until after the election to indict. If they indict now, Obama will definitely pardon her. If she loses the election, she will be subject to the rule of law, as she should be like any other citizen of the United States. If she wins the election, then the American People are the real losers in all respects.

Really? You think Obama would pardon her that quickly? I can't believe he'd do that—the situation is too fraught with controversy. It'd be too highly a political and partisan move, and I can't imagine it would go over real well with voters, either. I just don't see that being a good idea.

What danger is there for Obama if he pardons Hillary? There will be no political repercussions unless he decides to run for a lesser public office. IIRC, only one ex-president did that in the history of the US. Another ex-president, William H. Taft, was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. All other presidents retired more or less quietly.

Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon and there were no political repercussions for him.

If Hillary is indicted, her political career is over so she does not have to worry about any repercussions.

There's not a whole lot of danger, it just doesn't seem to fit his MO to me. He seems dedicated to creating a positive legacy, and I doubt that pardoning Clinton (even if she's indicted, which is far from certain; not really sure why this we're having this discussion at the moment, actually) would be high on his list of things that will do that. I can't see him running for lesser public office—his time in the White House has been hard enough. :-)

G. Kitchen

June 13, 2016 at 2:37 pm

He probably will not need to pardon. The FBI director will most likely wait until after the election. Either way, it would be the DOJ that would need to act and under Obama we know they will not take action against Hillary since they are complicit in some of the activities. My hope is that she looses the election, and the American people see real justice for the Clinton's and their ongoing criminal enterprise.

Right; I think there's almost no chance that an indictment will come before the election, if at all, and it'll take months, if not years, to be resolved. So Obama wouldn't even have a chance to pardon her before he's out of office.

cjop

June 12, 2016 at 3:19 pm

Good article. To those who wish to make this article political I say pick your poison. Trump or Clinton, the wealthy will get richer and the rest can suck air.

Glad you liked it! I worked really hard on this thing, and I'm glad not everyone thinks that it's a propaganda piece. :-) (Though pretty happy that people seem to be split over which side they think I'm supporting, which is a good sign of objectivity.)

zeira... I will be pinching my nose and biting my lip when I vote, but those who NEVER read and listen to mainstream media, and get their facts from alternative sources know what a danger Drumpf will be.
You are voting for the Supreme Court, your air, food and water, your education, your retirement chances, your parks, roads, bridges, your voting rights, and right here your net neutrality and internet freedom. The representative from the republican party will fight for NONE of the above. Choose wisely even if it hurts.

Really?
How do you know whom I will be voting, in which country etc, etc.
I have simply expressed my opinion in this matter as a Canadian Jew, who doesn’t give a damn about the US Supreme Court, the air, food and water, education etc.
What I do care is Israel, and that country will be better off with Trump as US President compared with the Israel hater Clinton.
That’s why I prefer Trump as President, not because he is so great.
He is bad, very bad, but compared with Clinton he is slightly better.
In my opinion the Republican Rubio was my favourite to win that party’s nomination, Cruz is too religious for my “taste”.

Tony

June 12, 2016 at 9:43 pm

The thought of another Clinton White House and all the scandal that follows them will spell disaster for this country what we can't afford is another Oboma term. I vote to give the business man a chance and forgo the career politician. Hillary Clinton is a crooked liar!

We, the American people, have finally gotten an election in which we're royally screwed no matter which way we vote. Too bad there is no viable third party candidate. Both the Republicans and the Democrats need a strong message to get their s**t together.

This is clearly an attempt to get a HRC approved spin article into the Google search results for people trying to learn about how Hillary broke the law and risked national security. Pathetic. The leaks are already starting to come out. And she will be judged in the court of public opinion. You can't stop or spin what is coming. We already know now that she received emails marked classified, and I believe this is just the beginning.

HRC-approved spin article? I would love to know how you came to that conclusion. What information did I leave out? What did I not point out that gives you that idea? What was spun? (Also, I have to say, that would be fantastic if we were high enough on the Clinton campaign's list to warrant a spin article. We're climbing the popularity ranks, but I don't think we've quite reached "political tool potential"-level yet.)

Hillary Clinton, her team, and anyone else connected to her or her campaign, had zero involvement with this totally *objective* article. I conceived it several months ago as section editor, and spent a while trying to find the right writer (great work by Dann), not to mention getting it approved by the MUO management.

As noted elsewhere, this site has no political leaning, it's made up of 20+ writers from all over the planet, with vastly different socio-political viewpoints.

Hilary Clinton email problems are not the reason I don’t support her.
Hilary’s policies, especially her support of islam combined with her anti-Israeli views are the main reasons I simply hate her.
From this point of view she is no different from Obama.
I don’t like Trump either, but I have no choice, he is my preference to be in the White House.

And that's fine—you don't have to care about Clinton's email scandal, but I think anyone who wants to give them any thought should have the whole story, which is why I wrote this article. You can support whoever you want, but you should do so with all of the information instead of the different pieces of it that are scattered over the big news sites.

How do you know how much information I have to make a decision in this case?
Enough to form an opinion and stick to it.
Hilary is known to be anti-Israeli, similar to Obama.
That fact alone is enough for me not to support her.

I'm not saying that you don't have enough information on the situation—I'm just saying that a lot of people are concerned about this situation, and I didn't think there was anywhere that they could get more than a few pieces of the information available on the email business, so I wrote an article where they could. If you already know everything there is to know about this issue, great, no problem; that just means this article wasn't intended for you.

Rhp

June 12, 2016 at 11:24 am

I'll look forward to your antiTrump pieces. If in fact you're just a Republican rag (as now appears), I look forward to cancellation of my subscription.

@Rhp:
Apparently, according to you, it is all right to expose The Donald's warts but not Shrillary's. I guess you are one of those who think that Hillary can do no wrong. I hope you will be happy with your choice during St. Hillary's reign.

My biggest complaint is the exposed attitude by Hillary and her entire staff that they didn't have to play by the same rules as everyone else. This e-mail issue is only one episode in a much larger pattern of bending and disregarding rules.

As an IT guy I love the fact that her server guru has to take the 5th!

He knew the server had been compromised by foreign hackers and he knew that he had a legal obligation to report it and he didn't do it. He's singing like a canary now because otherwise he will end up doing 5 to 10 years in Ft. Leavenworth. And he doesn't look like a guy capable of doing hard time.

That's an interesting interpretation of his plea—I hadn't thought of it that way. I think there are too many different possibilities for what he's telling the Justice Department to speculate, but that definitely could be one. We'll just have to wait and see. Hopefully not too long, but I have a feeling we won't hear what he has to say until after the election.

This is a good review of the issues but there is a real attempt by Hillary at false equivalency by citing State's report that previous Secretarys used personal email for State business.

The clear inference is she was just continuing the practices of her predecessors. This is like saying everybody driving breaks the speed limit so what's the problem with my driving 200 miles an hour at night with my lights off?

1. Hillary's immediate immediate predecessor, Condoleezza Rice used Zero private emails for State business because she did not have a private email devise. The IG report stated they found 10 emails on on Rice's immediate staff's personal emails.

2. Colin Powell was the first State Secretary to use private email for State business and the IG report found 2 emails that were retroactively marked classified. Powell vehemently denies they were classified. He says they were forwarded messages from Ambassadors and we're not classified. available IG report says they contained no intelligence information.

3. Rules on using personal email we're tightened in 2005 and Condoleezza Rice did not use personal email ever during her term.

Cheryl Mills testified in her Judicial Watch deposition that she was involved in a major FOIA lawsuit from her time in the White House but later stated she never discussed with Hillary her use of private emails with respect to her FOIA responsibilities.

I'm glad you found the article to be good, and the issue that you bring up is an important one. I agree that the "but other people did it, too" excuse is a really terrible one, especially because Clinton was the first—at least it seems—to use private email exclusively, instead of occasionally or primarily. It's not a good defense, but we're going to hear it a lot. Hopefully reviews of the facts like these will help people see that it's not a good defense.

This is quite clearly a very important topical issue that has been dealt with objectively.

Dann has written one of the finest pieces ever to grace MakeUseOf, and introduced balance and clarity into a topic that is usually muddied with partisan hyperbole.

I hardly need to point out that MUO has not "become a political website". How on earth would we manage a consistent tone, for a start off, considering our team is spread all around the planet and has quite different views?

And where would we find time to produce our unrivalled collection of tutorials and tech advice?

Thanks for the high praise, Christian. I really appreciate it. :-) Imagining MUO as a political site with how varied our staff is, both geographically and politically, is kind of hilarious. We'd never get anything done!

Thanks, Johnnie! The article is a bit uncharacteristic, but we felt that it's a very important issue, and that people should know about it. During my research, I found that a lot of big-name news sites were only reporting a portion of the facts, and that no one had put them all together yet. I thought it was important that I did that. It wasn't always easy to keep it politically neutral, but I'm glad you think I succeeded!

Man, you hit a BUNCH of nails on the head with this one. These comments are indeed becoming a political contest—which, of course, was inevitable. Like you said, one's political candidate becomes an emotional choice, and that gets people up in arms like nothin' else. I knew this article was going to create a comment storm, but I've actually been pretty impressed with how civil the vast majority of them have been. :-)

Understanding Hillary Clinton's criminality during her tenure as secretary of state is really quite simple.

A secretary of state knows that she is going to be dealing with classified information and that she has a legal obligation to archive her work and make sure that it is all turned over before she quits; per her NDA she also accepts a legal duty to protect and recognize classified information whether it is marked or not.

Hillary Clinton knowingly and willingly set up a non-secure home-brew server at a non-secure unauthorized location, the basement of her mansion. This server processed 100% of her work and personal emails; since it dealt with more than 30,000 work-related emails, it became government property.

At least 2,115 classified emails were held on this home-brew server, 82 of which were SECRET or TOPSECRET/SAP intelligence. Thus, she violated at least two federal statutes: 18 USC § 793 (f) and 18 USC § 1924.

All national security experts -- e.g. Robert Gates, Michael Flynn -- believe that this server was hacked by foreign intelligence agencies; as a result our national security has been severely undermined because of Hillary's selfishness and stupidity.

Moreover, it is a federal crime to destroy government property without permission (18 USC § 2071) as she did when she wiped her server and it's another federal crime to obstruct justice ( 18 USC § 1519) which Hillary did when she knowingly and willingly withheld emails subpoenaed by Congressional committees and requested through the FOIA.

Obviously, Hillary also broke the Federal Records Act regulations because she did not archive
and return her work as she was supposed to have done. The recent OIG report for State confirmed this.

And this article which tries to make her bad acts seem complicated when they aren't neglects to mention her lucrative pay to play graft scheme where, as secretary of state, she went around the world and traded U.S. government favors for billions of dollars in contributions to her slush fund (aka "The Clinton Foundation" and "speaking fees" for Bill.)

Anyone else who had committed these crimes between 2009 and 2012 would have been indicted, prosecuted, and placed in a federal prison by now.

The Clintons and their aides have only avoided prison because of our utterly corrupt progressive DoJ.

I agree with a lot of what you said there, but you're going to have to provide some evidence on the graft accusation, as that's something that I'm not too familiar with. I've heard rumblings of such accusations, but I haven't seen any proof. If you could post some links to proof of that, I'd be very appreciative!

I commiserate with you Tony, but Dann did try to make this situation clearer, and for me at least, he did a pretty good job. I've been more interested in this presidential race than any before (though there's nothing actually Presidential about it), but I really didn't have an idea what the email thing was all about because I don't really give a flaming poo about anything Hillary says, does or thinks. So, thank you Dann.

Other than that, I'll echo what you said by echoing what I said earlier: there's no excuse for even giving her the option to set up her email system as she did. It was asking for trouble because politicians LIE.

Thanks a lot, Kelsey; I tried really hard to make this article as informative as possible without overly politicizing it. I'm glad you think I did a pretty good job! The entire situation hasn't been reported on all that well, which I think is a bit suspicious. Also, I'm with you on being more interested in this race than any of the previous ones; there's always a lot at stake, but this one feels like there's even more on the table.

"While Clinton’s team maintain that there were no successful attacks on the server"
How can you tell a politician is lying? His/her lips are moving.
Does anybody actually expect Hillary or anybody connected with her to admit that an attack was successful?! That would put the kabosh on Hillary's presidential aspirations faster than you can blink.

"Clinton’s campaign and aides have at times maintained that the rules are unclear"
And we are supposed to entrust the position of POTUS to a person who, as a a lawyer, cannot understand simple regulations?! How will Hillary be able to run this country? Or is she going to claim that she does not understand the Constitution?

"they were following the regulations as they (and Secretary Clinton) understood them"
So she interpreted the regulations to her benefit. Once she is elected, is Hillary going to also interpret the Constitution as it suits her or just disregard it altogether?

"Of course, one of the issues on everybody’s mind is how these questions might affect the 2016 presidential election."
2016 elections will not be affected. Hillary will be elected and use her influence to stall any investigation. If she ever is indicted, it will be long after she leaves office. She will continue to make a joke out of the US justice system.

Even if Clinton isn't indicted, I think this issue could have some notable effects on the election. People are not happy about this whole fiasco. Obviously there are a lot of people who think it's no big deal, and a lot of people who just don't care, but there are also quite a few who are really worried by what appears to be both suspicious behavior and a miscarriage of justice. Polls—though they're still very early and usually wrong anyway—indicate that Trump could win against her. And if he does, I think this would be part of the reason why.

Americans are obsessed with setting records and doing/being first this or first that. Last time, they elected the "first African-American". This election is a chance to elect the "first woman". To that end, the voters will overlook any skeletons Hillary has in her closet.

Besides, The Donald has his own rattling skeletons, namely the Trump University case and a slew of suits filed against him by contractors because Trump companies did not pay or underpaid for services rendered.

"Polls...........................indicate that Trump could win against her. "
I would like to see that poll. That is the first time I've heard of anybody giving Trump a chance against Hillary.

The Republican National Committee, as well as many Republicans, are afraid that if they select Trump as the party candidate they will be handing the election to Hillary on a silver platter. Somehow I get the impression that the Republicans expect the email-gate, to coin a phrase, to be a detriment to Hillary's campaign.

"...it looks like we won’t see the end of this discussion for a very long time."

This seems to be a tactic used to diffuse situations like these. The accused and their protectors drone on and on about minute details to the point where the public has moved on to the next Kardashion/Kanye incident.

Very interesting point, and very true. The State Department recently announced that they wouldn't be releasing any of Clinton's emails from the TPP negotiations until after the election, and that seems like a similar tactic to diffuse public interest in an issue that could have serious consequences for the election. Hopefully enough public interest and discussion will keep the issues in the spotlight long enough that the outcry will get some response other than "we're working on it, hold on until the election's over." Drives me nuts.

Back in Bush's 6th year, "responding to congressional demands for emails in connection with its investigation into the partisan firing of eight U.S. attorneys, the White House announced that as many as five million emails, covering a two-year span, had been lost.

The emails had been run through private accounts controlled by the Republican National Committee and were only supposed to be used for dealing with non-administration political campaign work to avoid violating ethics laws. Yet congressional investigators already had evidence private emails had been used for government business, including to discuss the firing of one of the U.S. attorneys. The RNC accounts were used by 22 White House staffers, including then-Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who reportedly used his RNC email for 95 percent of his communications." (http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/03/10/flashback-when-millions-of-lost-bush-white-hous/202820) and no one cared. Now everyone is blowing this way out of proportion. It's not going anywhere. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama pardoned her just to get the RNC to drop this non-issue.

As much as I hate to admit it, I think you might be right about this case not going anywhere. So many people are blowing smoke about it, but the government has to be willing to step up its game, and I'm just not sure it is. We'll just have to wait it out and see!

That's a problem in our society: it's become fashionable to just "drop" any issue that someone's opinion says is unimportant, regardless of whether it's right or wrong. Funny how if I rob a gas station, no matter how much I ignore cops banging on my door or no matter how many other people really don't care, it won't just disappear for me. Either everyone is accountable or nobody is accountable.

Whatever crimes Bush did commit you can be sure that the mob mind was pressed to "just fuggetaboutit", just as I'm sure the same thing is happening behind the scenes with Hillary's screw-ups. Things would already be much further along if it was a simple uninfluenced cut-and-dried case of "she broke the law, now she pays". She won't pay because the Clinton's are somehow immune from and above the law that all of us average Joe's are in submission to.

Now cue the X-Files music: did you ever think that Georgie, a member of the Skull and Bones would pay full legal price anyway? :)

The big difference,Dan is that what people say or believe in their private lives will never measure against what people who hold political power do with their political actions. Almost apples and oranges.

I would much rather have a president who believes in racism than one who is willing to pass laws of state-mandated associations backed by threat of physical force.

Well, one's be;lief - like racism - is protected by freedom of belief. State-mandated associations on the other hand are violations of our civil right to freedom of association - not to mention they are backed by the state threat of physical force.

Howard A Pearce @HAPLibertarian

June 11, 2016 at 9:25 pm

Most (all) do not support egalitarianism - only equality of rights which egalitarianism actually undermines.

Guy, and my real point here is how political "liberals" love painting everyone by their beliefs but have almost nothing to say about morality of this or that political action.

And I wouldn't vote for a racist :D

And thx for your otherwise nice comments

fcd76218

June 11, 2016 at 10:07 pm

@Matt Hughes:
"Hillary hiding her emails just feels…"
It's not like she was hiding the emails between her and Chelsea about how newly married life is. She was hiding emails that were/are classified as Top Secret and above. She was doing this on a server whose security, at this point in time, is unknowable because of all the massaging it has received since its content came into question. We only have her word that it was properly secured and never breached. Let's not forget that the data from some of the largest security breaches was not made public until few years after the fact.

Donal Trump may be a bigoted, bombastic buffoon but he has never put national security at risk. He never was in the position to while Hillary was in that position for FOUR years. I would rather have a bigoted buffoon as POTUS than a scheming, self-serving politician who plays fast and loose with national security.

Matt, you're certainly not alone in the "I just don't care" sentiment. To be honest, for quite a while, I agreed with you. But after researching this article, I've started to care more. And it's the fact that so much was actively hidden. Clinton has taken an absolute beating in the right-wing (and, to a lesser degree, the popular) media because of this issue, and her camp had to know it was coming. It's the same with her speech to Goldman Sachs. If there wasn't the possibility of the revelation being extremely damaging, why would they choose to let people's crazy assumptions run wild? She's never been seen as especially trustworthy, and this has damaged her reputation even more. It seems to me like this had to be a calculated decision—look combative and hide everything to take a hit in public opinion to prevent even more damaging information from coming to light.

That's what it looks like anyway. As for the comparison to Trump, that's certainly a valid point—I tried to stay away from that as much as possible during the article, though. :-) And because this is an important issue to people, and people will want to know the whole story, I thought it was important to write. How people make use of this information is up to them, but because so many sources—including the New York Times—are still providing at least somewhat incomplete information, someone had to step up and provide a more comprehensive account.

That ended up being pretty much the length of another article. Oops. Really glad you liked the piece overall!

When one is smitten by a candidate, one will overlook any deeds of that candidate short of treason. If one does not like a candidate, jaywalking and/or spitting on the sidewalk will seem like major character flaws.

If you can't trust someone with small things, you certainly can't trust them with big ones.

Dann Albright

June 12, 2016 at 3:33 pm

Kelsey, that's definitely something that a lot of people are saying. I think it comes down to how much malicious intent you attribute to Clinton and her camp throughout this whole thing. But, then, of course, you have the election issue of "even if we can't trust Clinton, is Trump any better?" That's certainly going to be on a lot of people's minds. The issue itself is complicated, but trying to contextualize it in an election year is even more difficult!

fcd76218

June 12, 2016 at 6:34 pm

@Dann:
"If you can’t trust someone with small things, you certainly can’t trust them with big ones."
That is a red herring. It is a straw man setup by political campaigns to distract the voters' attention from their candidate's shortcomings and to discredit and/or cast doubt on the fitness of the opponent for the job. I'm sure that someone can establish some kind of a spurious cause and effect between a candidate's habit of jaywalking and his/hers suitability for the office of POTUS. However, is that pertinent? And, please, nobody say that it speaks to the candidate's character. They may be characters but they do not have character. By definition and actions, politicians are liars and, therefore, cannot be trusted.

fcd76218

June 12, 2016 at 6:06 pm

If we follow that logic, Kelsey, then we cannot trust ANYBODY, politician or not. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

Kelsey Tidwell

June 12, 2016 at 9:04 pm

fcd76218, you are absolutely correct...I don't trust any politicians on either side of the aisle because in order to be successful politically it has been proven time and time again that moral compromises are made. As for the rest of civilization, I don't trust anyone who hasn't earned my trust. Thank you for answering scripture with scripture.

As for my statement of fact being a red herring, I stay away from gray areas as much as humanly possible. Things are either right or wrong, honest or dishonest. So if a person lies about a small thing, I certainly can't trust them with big situations.

Ken

June 11, 2016 at 5:16 pm

Seems to me:

1. Anyone sending or receiving an email from her personal account would know it wasn't an official email account.
2. While I would expect the official servers would be secure, that hasn't always proven to be the case. The government has had some pretty large security breaches in the past.
3. There is no guarantee that a private commercial server would be more secure than a privately run server. Every major commercial service has been breached, some several times. The people that were working on Clinton's server are certainly respected in their field.

All that being said we need to ensure that official email is secure and is also available later.
We should also make sure that the Secretary of State, a position which is known to require a great deal of travel should have the proper, secure mobile tools.

"While I would expect the official servers would be secure, that hasn’t always proven to be the case."
Official servers are secured to certain specifications. Do we know whether the Mrs. Clinton's private server met, or perhaps exceeded, those specifications? Do we know whether it had ANY security? We can only assume that Mrs. Clinton was responsible enough to have her server properly secured. But, then, we all know about the word "ass-u-me". Considering the alterations made to the content of Mrs. Clinton's private server, those questions cannot be answered with any certainty, if at all.

Had Mrs. Clinton used the official server(s) then ALL her emails would have been available for review. Based on her subsequent actions, it seems that Mrs. Clinton did not want any review to occur so she used her own server.

"The people that were working on Clinton’s server are certainly respected in their field."
And you know that how? For all you know some kid down the block from the Clinton's was the one maintaining the server in his spare time.

Ken, you're right; using a private or government server certainly wouldn't ensure that your account was secure. But the fact that the protections are a matter of record on an official account is important. And while the government has had breaches in the past, they pour a frankly incredible amount of money into cybersecurity, so the chances that an official server would have been secure seem—to me—pretty good.

And yes, I agree that SecState should definitely have secure mobile tools. Both Clinton and the IT guys at State messed that one up. They should have found a better way to get her a secure device faster. But she shouldn't have been using an insecure one in the interim. There are a lot of people involved in this entire thing, which makes it rather difficult to keep straight in your head!

There should never have been an option for her to use a personal device. None. A broad assumption was made that isn't characteristic of the U.S. government: that she would play by the rules without oversight.

That whole part of the story is still a bit of a mystery to me. It's weird that the State Department either wouldn't have known that was going on or would have overlooked it. I don't really understand how either was possible. It sounds like State Department IT was working on a solution, but why they let her keep using her own BlackBerry until then is totally beyond me.

Howard A Pearce @HAPLibertarian

June 11, 2016 at 5:15 pm

That MakeUseOf has published what apparently looks like just 1 side of the argument only points out my earlier claims about the bias in MakeUseOf 's social views.

Dann explained (rather well, I might add) a complicated and multi-faceted issue in the current campaign. He accurately used a wide-range range of primary and secondary sources. He did a good job.

The fact is there's a difference between an explainer (which this is), and a roundtable discussion. MakeUseOf isn't a political website. We're a tech publication, and that's what Dann focused on in this piece: the tech, and the legal issues surrounding the tech.

If you feel like the Libertarian position is missing, you're welcome to add your two cents in the comments.

I think Matt summed it up perfectly; explaining an issue—which I tried to do here—and discussing either one or multiple sides of an argument are different things. I feel like I presented the facts without much bias (as it's debatable whether anyone can present facts completely without bias), and I stand by that. As Matt said, the comments are open for discussion of different issues, like her oath of office. Just because that's the most important issue to you doesn't mean that the other parts of the situation "never counted." Obviously they DID count to a lot of people, because this is a huge point of discussion around the country right now.

And I still don't understand why you think this is only one side of the issue. What's the other side that we're missing here?

Howard A Pearce @HAPLibertarian

June 12, 2016 at 4:11 pm

Because at a minimum you totally failed to consider her oath of office as secretary of state as having anything to do with the issue - only aiming your comments at criticisms against her like she was just some ordinary politician who came across some documents.

I also believe that, regardless of your opinion of Fox News, a balanced view would include reading their opinion where in my mind you would not have missed Judge Andrew Napolitano 's opinion on the issue ... particularly her oath of office that you conveniently excluded from consideration.

Dann Albright

June 12, 2016 at 5:33 pm

So really, the only issue that you're concerned about not being addressed here is the oath of office, and you think that makes this a one-sided argument. I think that's a bit of an overstatement and an oversimplification. Please share in your next comment which part of the oath of office you're concerned about and we can talk about it, if you like.

I did mention that "government regulations do stipulate that sensitive information should be treated as classified regardless of how it’s labeled," which I think might point to part of what you think is the most important issue here, but I'm not sure if that's what you're talking about or not.

Howard A Pearce @HAPLibertarian

June 12, 2016 at 6:21 pm

Given that one's oath of office is a very important part of one's duties and that had you put any effort into watching a Fox News segment on Hillary and her emails, you would have realized that.

"None of this information was marked as classified when it was sent" Did you forget her memo in some of her email to remove those portions . And, I wonder why you feel it necessary to say "when it was sent". Sounds like an escape route to me.

"and it’s unclear whether Secretary Clinton would have known that it would be classified."

Her oath of ofiice said that it was her job to understand what qualified as sensitive or not . She was either too stupid to do her job or she violated her oath of office. Either way, not someone I would consider capable as being president.

You hardly mention the fact she had deleted not just some, but many emails which you have obviously taken her word as being private.

Dann Albright

June 12, 2016 at 5:34 pm

Also, just so I understand what you're accusing me of, you're saying that this is a one-sided explanation in FAVOR of Clinton? If that's what you're saying, I have to say that's really entertaining, as people have been accusing me of being biased toward both sides, and I think that's a great sign that the article is objective and as comprehensive as it can be.

Howard A Pearce @HAPLibertarian

June 12, 2016 at 6:28 pm

Do I think it was in favor of Clinton ? Yes. For some of the reasons I mentiomed.

"The accusations range from the believably unfortunate — accidental mishandling of (at the time) unclassified information — to the outlandish"

You call that a neutral view ?

Dann Albright

June 12, 2016 at 8:39 pm

Yeah, actually, I do call that neutral. People have accused her of a wide range of things. On one side, you have people saying she made a mistake. On the other end, you have people saying she sold state secrets to foreign powers. In the middle, you have ignorance, dereliction of duty, obstruction of justice, purposeful concealment of personal and government records, and a whole bunch of other things. Just because I didn't list them all doesn't make this a biased article.

Howard A Pearce @HAPLibertarian

June 12, 2016 at 9:46 pm

So if I said views in congress ranged from conservative to outlandish, that would be a neutral statement ?

You claimed MORE than that there were outlandish claims. You claimed at one end are the "reasonable" "Hillary made a mistake" claims and ranged to the other end of outlandish claims.

No where mentioned in that statement was a place for those who claimed she violated the law.

Howard A Pearce @HAPLibertarian

June 11, 2016 at 5:10 pm

"“there was not an explicit, categorical prohibition against federal employees using personal emails.”

In response "Hillary Clinton violated federal records rules by never obtaining permission to conduct official business on private email server during her tenure as secretary state, a State Department audit concluded." Let's not get into "what the defintion of "is" is.

"Mrs. Clinton had a legal obligation to recognize state secrets when she saw them, no matter their markings or non-markings. On her first day on the job, she swore under oath that she recognized and understood that legal obligation and she promised to comply with it. She did not comply." Judge Napolitano fox news

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the "definition of "is" is" thing, but the final paragraph in your comment is an important point. Despite being sourced to a rather problematic news source, the quote does point out that government employees are told—I believe—to treat any piece of information that could be sensitive as if it were classified. Obviously that's a difficult thing to do, and it leaves a huge amount of room for interpretation, but a lot of people definitely have the same opinion as the one expressed in your quote.

Not if you are Hillary Clinton saying she had no email MARKED as "top secret" on her server while knowing she had emailed people to remove them before sending them.

Dann Albright

June 13, 2016 at 9:43 pm

But earlier, you were saying that there were no documents marked Top Secret, because top secret is a category, and not a classification. Now you're saying that Clinton had those markings removed. That sounds like a totally different issue to me. Also, are there examples of this happening en masse? I've only seen limited examples of her requesting that important information be removed from emails.

Howard A Pearce @HAPLibertarian

June 13, 2016 at 10:16 pm

"Proper (but often ignored) rules stipulate that every paragraph will bear a classification marking of (U) for Unclassified, (C) for Confidential, (S) for Secret, and (TS) for Top Secret. "

Bad markings! If you want, I will cnced I should have said PROPER markings :)

When the agenda is plain to see in just about every article you see, it's nice to read an article that treats the scandal in an even-handed way.

One great irony in the whole scandal is the fact that Hillary's State Department cited *the exact same thing she was doing* as one of the reasons for firing the ambassador to Kenya:

>> The Ambassador’s greatest weakness is his reluctance to accept clear-cut U.S. Government decisions including the nonuse of commercial email for official government business, including Sensitive But Unclassified information… <<

I'm really glad you found this to be an "even-handed" article. If you've read through any of the other comments, you'll see that not everyone thinks that way! I worked really hard to stay objective, and I think I did a pretty good job, so it's great to hear some positive feedback on that front.

I haven't heard about the Kenya Ambassador thing. I'll have to check that out; thanks for sharing the link!

This was about control. Hillary Clinton, with forethought of her 2016 candidacy, wanted the ability to ensure that she had control over as much information about her State tenure as possible. Her subsequent deletion of "private" e-mails on her server enabled her the complete control she desired. A private commercial e-mail address (which ironically would have been more secure then her server) would not ensure her the absolute control she sought.

The only error she regrets is her miscalculation of the public's reaction to her choices.

I think that's a fair assessment, and there are some indications that she's used similar means for similar ends in the past. And, to be fair, a lot of information control is required if you're going to get elected. But you're right; it definitely looks like the reaction to the use of this particular tactic caught her camp off-guard.

Dann is a freelance journalist interested in technology, health, and cognitive science. When he's not writing, he's almost certainly playing board or card games (or working on a forthcoming book about them). Follow him on Twitter at @dann_albright.